|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3627 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What is a 'true Christian'? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
That's not me commanding it, but rather reporting it. If you were just reporting it, then it wouldn't be coming along with your interpretations of what it means and how it works.
Its not up for you to say. A person could be considered, by God, to be a Christian without fullfilling one of the qualifications you insist upon.
Correct, it's not up to me. If it were, I'd let everyone in. The very simple qualification I listed was outlined by Jesus in the Bible. I don't insist upon it, Jesus does.
Romans 10:9 writes: If you declare with your mouth, Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. That would be Denying the antecedent, a logical fallacy. If P then Q. Not P therefore not Q. That doesn't work. A better verse to make your claim would be where Jesus said that no one comes to the Father except through him (John 14:6). But still, that doesn't mean that people who don't think Jesus is God cannot be a Christian. Its possible that they could still come to the Father through Jesus even thought they didn't think he was God, we really don't know. Anyways, in the parable of the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25, Jesus explains that there will be Christians who are not saved and there will be non-Christians who are saved, so he disagrees with your qualifications in some parts of the Bible.
but you have to hold on to Romans 10:9, otherwise you're lost. Regardless, you could still be a Christian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Moses made a huge mistake when he included a commandment against adultery instead of one against homosexuality. Actually you are told not to covet thy neighbors ass ... thus covering bestiality and sodomy in one fell swoop. (and there were probably more on the third tablet, the one Moses dropped ... ) by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
faceman writes:
That's a poor analogy. We're talking about people who think they're folowers of Jesus, not people who think they're Jesus. If I honestly think I'm Napoleon Bonaparte, does that make it so? If you honestly think you are a follower of Napoleon, who's to say you're not? Napoleon, maybe. But other people who claim to be followers of Napoleon don't get to decide whether you are or not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
That would confirm or deny your claim of being a good athlete. Why can't you be a "true athlete" without being any good at it?
I could also claim to be a true athlete, but one minute on the track, or on the Pitchers Mound, or the Tennis Court would quickly confirm or deny my claim. Phat writes:
I ask repeatedly and never get a good answer: What does it mean to "trust in Jesus"? Does it mean believing he was a real person, five-foot-nine with a beard and long hair? Or does it mean doing what He wanted you to do?
Whoever trusts in Jesus, though he believes one moment and dies the next, has his life hid with Christ in God. Phat writes:
Again, what does "relationship" mean? Does it mean saying, "I do, I do, I do believe in spooks," or does it mean doing thngs that He would like you to do?
In essence, relationship with Jesus is a definite indicator.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18349 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
David Platt,small group study writes: Thats David Platts take on it. Evidently he does not consider Jesus as a dead spook. "Follow Me." These two words contained radical implications for the lives of the disciples. In a time when the sons of fishers were also fishers, these men would have grown up around the sea. Fishing was the source of their livelihood and all they'd ever known. It represented everything familiar and natural to them. That's what Jesus was calling them away from. By calling these men to leave their boats, Jesus was calling them to abandon their careers. When He called them to leave their nets, He was calling them to abandon their possessions. When He called them to leave their father in the boat by himself, He was calling them to abandon their family and friends. Ultimately, Jesus was calling them to abandon themselves.ringo writes: I think that we have established already---in other threads--that doing what He wants(wanted, for some) us to do is a necessity. jar would argue that it does not matter if we believe He is alive or not, while others would argue that it is only through His transforming Spirit that we can by nature even love our neighbor without coveting his ass or his wife or anything else. Does it mean believing he was a real person, five-foot-nine with a beard and long hair? Or does it mean doing what He wanted you to do?ringo writes: To me, it means trusting that I am doing the best that I can do on a daily basis...in communion with His living Spirit. Others may not feel the need for that belief in order to do the best that they can do. Personally, I believe that He lives in me. Some fully understand what I'm talking about while others may think my belief a bit bizarre. What does it mean to "trust in Jesus"? Edited by Phat, : spellcheckWhen I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, it means just what I choose it to meannothing more nor less.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
What I'm saying is that it doesn't make any difference whether He's a dead spook or a fictional character. Neither prevents us from following Him.
Evidently he does not consider Jesus as a dead spook. Phat writes:
I keep pointing out (and you seem to keep ignoring) the fact that it isn't - in reality - only Christians (whether true or not) who demonstrate love for their neighbours. Why do you continue to repeat a mantra that is obviously false?
... others would argue that it is only through His transforming Spirit that we can by nature even love our neighbor without coveting his ass or his wife or anything else.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18349 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
ringo writes: Either you are athletic or you are not. There is a point where one cannot run fast enough to catch the pop fly to right field. If they are not good at baseball, they are not athletic enough to catch the ball. Why can't you be a "true athlete" without being any good at it? Going further with these analogies...I suppose that one could simply go and do good for others without being religious....thus they are a true humanist. My point is that by definition, a Christian has trust that Jesus Christ is alive today (in Spirit) and that they trust this Spirit in daily communion...be it formal or informal. A humanist would have no desire (or self professed need) to trust anything apart from themselves or other living humans to be in communion with. I would agree, however, that Jesus would not shun them for such belief. Perhaps they would not feel in communion with Him since they lacked belief yet that would not prevent Him from having communion with them---even without their conscious awareness of such a thing. When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, it means just what I choose it to meannothing more nor less.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18349 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
ringo writes: To some it would. What I'm saying is that it doesn't make any difference whether He's a dead spook or a fictional character. Paul...who purportedly got knocked off his high horse and blinded before he accepted Jesus...argues that if the Gospel is false...the entire calling is in vain.
1 Corinthians 15:1-17 writes: 1 Cor 15:1-17Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. 3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. 9 For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them-yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. 11 Whether, then, it was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed. 12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. I can see your point---however---that it is actions that count more than beliefs. Thus, you may argue that it is irrelevant if the Gospel is true or if Jesus actually existed...as long as you live the actions that the character in the book lived. Apparently, the author of Corinthians did not think so. I would say---in conclusion---that doing is better than mere believing. Faith without works is dead. And actions speak louder than words. I do not diminish the words in Corinthians, however. The character in the book must be eternally alive even if fictional. Thats a requirement of this character. When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, it means just what I choose it to meannothing more nor less.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18349 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
If you define a Christian with a qualification that requires the Bible, then none of the people who existed before the Bible was compiled could be considered Christians. Which would include the authors. Not so. The word was the word in the beginning. The word(s) were spoken orally long before they were written down. The early believers surely had some impartation from the spoken word---if not the written. When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, it means just what I choose it to meannothing more nor less.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
If you define a Christian with a qualification that requires the Bible, then none of the people who existed before the Bible was compiled could be considered Christians. Which would include the authors. Not so. The word was the word in the beginning. The word(s) were spoken orally long before they were written down. The early believers surely had some impartation from the spoken word---if not the written. But the Bible is the books. If you base your definition of being a true Christian as believing in the books, then the people who lived before the books could not be considered Christians. Which is obviously in error, so the definition cannot be based on the Bible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined:
|
The Bible today is the "books" but Paul's teachings were inspired before they were bound into a book, and all the New Testament writings were considered to be inspired before they were bound into a book. They were recognized as inspired by the early church and passed around as individual writings for many years before the canon was fully recognized and long long before it was bound into a book. And the Old Testament was the inspired source for the New Testament writers themselves.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
The Bible today is the "books" but Paul's teachings were inspired before they were bound into a book, and all the New Testament writings were considered to be inspired before they were bound into a book. They were recognized as inspired by the early church and passed around as individual writings for many years before the canon was fully recognized and long long before it was bound into a book. And the Old Testament was the inspired source for the New Testament writers themselves. Right, and therefore, believing in the books cannot be a requirement for being a Christian. There were Christians before there were the books.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined:
|
The Christians who were before the books believed what we now believe THROUGH the books. The point is what we believe not what form it came to us in.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
The Christians who were before the books believed what we now believe THROUGH the books. The point is what we believe not what form it came to us in. Okay, so then there's no requirement to believe in the Bible to be a true Christian. And your definition that a true Christian must take the Bible as the final authority is in error.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined:
|
Okay, so then there's no requirement to believe in the Bible to be a true Christian. And your definition that a true Christian must take the Bible as the final authority is in error.
No, let's take this very slowly. The books we have now contain the same truths the early Christians believed who did not have the books we have. They had the original teachers, and soon they also had many of the separate writings of those teachers. It's all the same teachings, whether in our Bible or word of mouth as they originally got it. Now we have it in book form and we don't have the teachers around to teach us as they did, so it's a good thing we have the books that preserve their teachings for us. And because the books contain those inspired teachings the Bible is the final authority and we must believe it.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024